Mediaboss Marketing

Over the weekend, it was revealedthat the Office for Students, a non-departmental public body of the Department for Education, will soon be empowered to fine student bodies for meddling with free speech. A new free speech champion will be appointed by Education Secretary Gavin Williamson to oversee on-campus debate and punish universities, unions and societies, which they believe are guilty of no-platforming.

In 2019, the Equality and Human Rights Commission published guidelinesstating that no-platforming is often misunderstood and misreported. It said that, effectively, the government would only consider intervening where there is a clear conflict between two student bodies say, a political society and a students union in which an external speakers invitation has been forcefully blocked.

It would appear that, in the two years since that announcement, the EHRCs advice has been shunted to one side in favour of the governments preferences. The new free speech champion, due to be announced next week, seems to have an alarming amount of discretion over who gets fined and why.

The problem here is that the government is operating according to a narrative which it would very much like to be true, but has no actual basis in fact, no matter how many sensationalist news stories are published on the subject. As I have written before, Tory students like me are not censored on campuses in this country, however convenient it might be if we were.

The government is desperate for Conservative students free speech to be under attack, so it can swoop in and save us. But when asked for examples of no-platforming, the best it can come up with is the Amber Rudd controversy at Oxford, which was not a free speech issue.

As is so often the case, it was a cock-up, not a conspiracy.There was a last-minute panic among organisers that some promotional material might have been misleading. This triggered a hurried cancellation. It was an embarrassing mistake, awkward for everyone involved, but it ought to be clear from the last-minute fumble and subsequent PR disaster for the society involved that this was not a malicious, co-ordinated effort to stop a Conservative from speaking to students.

In fact, a 2018 reportfrom thecross-partyparliamentary human rights committee found that, apart from a few isolated incidents whose causes can be easily traced, there is no problem to be solved here. We did not find the wholesale censorship of debate in universities which media coverage has suggested, it said.

No-platforming is a non-issue. Students, people who speak to students, and indeed everybody else, already have their right to freedom of expression enshrined in the law. What they dont and shouldnt have is the right to a platform. Students like me should be able to invite whoever we like to speak to us at university which we are.

Campus debate is organic, as it should be, and that means it is often messy. Different groups disagree about which events should be held, when, where and with whom. But students are not children. We resolve those disputes when they occur and, for the most part, nobody sues anybody else. Sometimes, we even exercise our right to protest.

None of this is unusual. The only reason this is a news story is because big-name Tories like to leap on any appearance of pushback as evidence of a sophisticated conspiracy to shut them down. Take, for instance, the time an event with Peter Hitchens at the University of Portsmouth was delayed, and Hitchens took to Twitter to complain about being censored by thought police.

The state interfering with perfectly functional campus discourse is not a pro-free speech move.

Alongside paying lip service to the free speech of poor, victimised Conservative students for the purposes of its war on woke, the government is also reportedly telling heritage organisations to defend our culture and history from the noisy minority of activists constantly trying to do Britain down. Er... can we openly express our views about British history, or cant we?

This, it seems to me, is the real issue. My generation is critically and loudly engaging with the legacy of the British empire in a way that none has before and many of my peers have reached conclusions that the government doesnt much like.

That leads to ill-thought-out interventions from the top to amplify what it sees as pro-British narratives: traditional, socially conservative worldviews. In the minds of those in government, the fact that so few student voices are rising up to declare that colonialism wasnt so bad after all is a sure sign that their side of the debate is being trampled by censorious lefties.

In addition to its sincere quest to drag thousands of non-existent 19-year-old paleoconservatives out from the shadows, in terms of electability and PR, the government has forgotten how to deal with a Labour leader who isnt Jeremy Corbyn.

Its recent promiseto protect Victorian street names from baying mobs is a great example of that.If there was a widespread, concerted effort to wipe out British culture and heritage, would road names really be the front line of that battle?

The government is trapped within its own culture war discourse. It sees imaginary woke militants everywhere it looks from local councils to students unions. By insisting that universities are controlled by censorious rabbles, it is hurting, not helping, students even Tory ones like me.

Jason Reed is a sociology student at LSE, a member of the Conservative party, and elected treasurer of the LSE Conservative Society

View original post here:
The governments obsession with provoking culture wars is embarrassing and I say that as a Tory student - The Independent

Only the second Roman Catholic to hold the nations highest office, President Joe Biden has been one of the most pious and faithfully observant Christians in decades, peppering his speeches with quotes from theologians such as St. Augustine and St. Francis of Assisi, and hymns like On Eagles Wings.

Since the 1960s, liberal Christianity has endured a steady decline, even as conservative congregations around the United States were growing and flourishing. But the remnants of these once-powerful Christian traditions have in many ways sparked back to life over the past few years, including with the elections of President Biden, Sen. Raphael Warnock, and Rep. Cori Bush.

A progressive coalition of religious liberals, spearheaded by Black Protestant churches, has reemerged as a political force in Democratic politics, disrupting what had long been the partys more secular ethos. Along with that has come an emphasis on the Social Gospel, which highlights the earthly ministries of Jesus and his commitment to people who are poor and oppressed.

The rejuvenation of liberal Christianity today represents an opportunity for Christian political discourse to move from the culture wars to the Social Gospel, says Mat Schmalz, a professor of religion.

New York

When Mat Schmalz was coming of age in western Massachusetts decades ago, he took a year to volunteer for a Roman Catholic order in rural Oklahoma, helping to minister to some of the regions poorer and more isolated communities.

It was the first time he spent a significant amount of time away from the rhythms of his Catholic upbringing, and at first he felt a bit unmoored. But then it almost came as a surprise as he grew particularly close to a family of Jehovahs Witnesses, or when he started forming deep friendships with evangelical Protestants, including those from charismatic and Pentecostal traditions.

I mean, in one sense it was liberating, says Mr. Schmalz, now a professor of religious studies at College of the Holy Cross in Worcester, Massachusetts, which he calls the heart of the Catholic left.

Those experiences gave me a sense then, and then throughout my life, that people who I would consider other could teach me something spiritually.

Such openness to other traditions, and even other forms of faith, have long characterized some of the more liberal expressions of American Christianity. Along with an emphasis on the Social Gospel, which highlights the earthly ministries of Jesus and his commitment to the poor and oppressed, these traditions helped ground his Christian faith over the years, Mr. Schmalz says.

Even so, for nearly a half-century liberal Christianity has endured a steady decline. Often in tension with certain Christian teachings and their exclusive claims to truth, its openness may have in fact cut away the distinctiveness of traditional faith, some historians contend. As a cultural and political force, too, its influence has waned since the 1960s, even as conservative congregations around the country were growing and flourishing.

But the remnants of these once-powerful Christian traditions have in many ways sparked back to life over the past few years.

A progressive coalition of religious liberals, spearheaded especiallyby Black Protestant churches, has reemerged as a political force in Democratic politics, disrupting what had long been the partys more secular ethos.

It does seem to me that there has been this resurgence of people who interpret their Christian beliefs as a call to action on behalf of the most vulnerable, says Margaret McGuinness, professor of religion and theology at La Salle University in Philadelphia. And then, all of a sudden, here comes President Joe Biden, who wears his Catholic faith on his sleeve and I mean that in a good way, in a way that a lot of people are noticing.

Only the second Roman Catholic to hold the nations highest office, President Biden has been one of the most pious and faithfully observant Christians in decades, many observers say, peppering his speeches with more than the kind of general religious references politicians often make. Hes quoted theologians such as St. Augustine and St. Francis of Assisi, and Catholic hymns like On Eagles Wings, a favorite among many liberal Catholics.

Part of this resurgence can be seen as part of a broader reaction against the expressions of Christian nationalism that coalesced around former President Donald Trump, many observers say, who appointed an outsize number of Evangelicals and religious conservatives in his administration.

I think its been an important corrective to how in America, at least, when we hear about religion and politics, its always about the right, says Kraig Beyerlein,directorof the Center for the Study of Religion and Society at the University of Notre Dame. Theres usually very little discussion about the religious left.

Over the past few years, however, a number of high-profile Democrats including current New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker; Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg; and Missouri Congresswoman Cori Bush, a pastor from St. Louis have made their faith a centerpiece of their liberal policy positions as churches on the left become more politically active.

Sen. Raphael Warnock talks to a reporter as he leaves the Capitol at the conclusion of the second day of the second impeachment trial of former President Donald Trump, on Capitol Hill in Washington, Feb. 10, 2021.

In a recent study, in fact, Dr. Beyerlein and his colleagues found that a staggering 41% of congregations who identified as politically liberal participated in demonstrations or lobbied elected officials during the presidency of Mr. Trump, compared with only 5% who said they were active during the administration of former President Barack Obama.

Still, according to survey data, there are more than three times the number of self-identifying conservative congregations in the U.S. than liberal churches. Conservatives make up nearly half of the nations churches, while only 15% identify as liberal, he says, with 39% reporting they stand in the middle of the political spectrum.

A liberal Protestant who has attended churches committed to the sanctuary movement, Dr. Beyerlein was also surprised to find that a third of Catholic parishes across the U.S. declared themselves as sanctuaries for unauthorized immigrants during the Trump administration.

But the historic election of the Rev. Raphael Warnock to the U.S. Senate in January only underscores how much Black Protestants have taken the lead in reviving the liberal traditions of Christianity. As the first African American senator from Georgia, Senator Warnock has maintained his role as pastor of Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta, the former congregation of Martin Luther King Jr.

The amazing thing about Raphael Warnocks movement into the U.S. Senate is that it fits perfectly into the trajectory of African American Christianity post slavery, says Willie Jennings, professor of systematic theology and Africana studies at Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut.

It is a Christianity that aimed from the very beginning to call America to its better angels, its better light, and to try to draw the nation away from hypocrisy and toward living up to the Constitution and the nations founding documents.

But the easy demarcations of liberal and conservative have never really captured the traditions of the Black church, he says. The better word would be biblicist than conservative, which has its strengths and weaknesses.

The central strength of our biblicist tradition is that certain very powerful stories about how life ought to be lived is what guides us, Dr. Jennings continues. So the life of Jesus, the story of healing the sick and feeding the poor and fighting for the orphan and widows and turning to the least of these, has always made us recognize that this is where Gods attention is turned. All of that is crucial to African American Christianity.

But on the other side, which is also problematic, there are certain ways in which the biblical narratives describe the role of women or describe the ideal household in ways that do align with a social conservative vision, he says.

In December, a group of 25 Black pastors wrote an open letter to Senator Warnock urging him to oppose abortion. Many Catholic bishops have raised similar concerns about the abortion-rights stance of President Biden.

Make no mistake, though energized and resurgent, liberal Christianity remains on a relatively small space in the countrys religious landscape.

But its traditional de-emphasis on exclusive doctrines may fit well into the larger social movements in the country right now. Millennials and younger Americans increasingly care little about the exclusive particulars of traditional Christianity, even as Christians on both the left and right see faith as an integral part of political action.

Yet the value of a liberating openness to the other in liberal traditions can be challenging as well, says Mr. Schmalz. When he worked with Catholic converts among those on the bottom rung of Indias caste system, many resisted attempts to develop specifically Indian forms of Catholic worship.

Many of the [lowest caste members] I knew considered that to be a concession to high caste Brahmins, and so they were more comfortable with the traditional aspects of Catholicism, like the old mass when it is sung in Latin and so forth, he says.

And it was really interesting to me how powerful charismatic Catholicism was, continues Mr. Schmalz, talking about a faith that combines Catholic doctrine with evangelical traditions, including the laying on of hands. It was in this context that these people could touch and be touched, and for those whose caste meant that others avoided touching them thats obviously something incredibly meaningful.

Get the Monitor Stories you care about delivered to your inbox.

Deeply conservative, both charismatic Catholics and Evangelicals were well represented at the Capitol riot on Jan. 6, even as each make up some of the fastest growing movements of Christians on a global scale.

But the rejuvenation of liberal Christianity today represents an opportunity for Christian political discourse to move from the culture wars to the social gospel, Mr. Schmalz says, or offer a chance for the country to gradually shift away from what they call pelvic issues to broader social justice questions, such as the death penalty, immigration, and universal health care.

See the original post:
Biden, Warnock, and the resurgence of the liberal Christian - The Christian Science Monitor

I felt a very faint twinge of sympathy for Oliver Dowden, I have to confess, when I saw the storm of protest which greeted his request that the heads of the institutions funded by the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport should attend a meeting to discuss how history is represented in public institutions. Keeping any sympathy in check was the governments confrontational means of publicising the meeting: it was trailed in an article in the Sunday Telegraph, announcing that its purpose was to defend our history, amid concern that a noisy minority of activists are trying to do Britain down.

Nevertheless, how museums present and interpret British history is an important, problematic issue about which it is surely totally appropriate for museum directors and the heads of the agencies looking after heritage, including the National Trust and Historic England, to meet. There would be much to be gained from an open discussion about how they are responding to views including, from its own perspective, that of the government that our approach to history should be radically reconstructed.

It has been assumed that the meeting is totally unprecedented. While I was director of the National Gallery, however, it was not so unusual for there to be meetings called by the Department for Culture to discuss issues of common concern although these were certainly not summarised in the national press before they had even taken place. I remember a meeting to discuss how we were all going to deal with the Cultural Olympiad (I remember it because Tim Knox, then director of Sir John Soanes Museum, bravely said that he had no intention of paying any attention to the Olympics). I also remember being summoned to a dingy hotel outside Kingston, just before Christmas, for a series of pep talks by Labour ministers. This was deeply resented but we had no option, because the Department for Culture provides a considerable proportion of the funding of many of these institutions and, it needs to be remembered, is answerable to parliament for public policy. So, it is not unreasonable for the government to be interested in cultural policy.

The key issue is whether the government will use the meeting to explore how institutions have responded to the current demands to reinterpret history, to listen and to share issues of common concern. Or whether it will, instead, use this as an opportunity to try to impose the governments own ideas as to how national history should be presented: in the over-simplified, ahistorical and triumphalist manner that it has pushed in the wake of Brexit. The latter strategy will almost certainly be counterproductive; it will, and should be, resisted by trustee bodies, which have statutory independence.

From my perspective, there is a marked difference in the way institutions have responded to widespread concerns about how history is presented, many of which have been brought into focus by the Black Lives Matter movement. A frank discussion of these responses, and how they have themselves been received, might make for a good use of the advertised meeting.

A new home for Hans Sloane: the bust of the British Museums founder in a display exploring the legacies of empire and slavery. Photo: Chris J Ratcliffe/Getty Images

The British Museum, for example, has used lockdown to make a significant modification in the way its collection is presented. In particular, it has chosen to move the bust of Hans Sloane from a commemorative plinth into a display case with accompanying information about his career as a slave owner. Contrary to those newspaper pundits who were appalled by this action, probably without seeing it, I thought it was an entirely appropriate decision that the museum should document its founders actions as a slave owner and draw attention to them, but in a way which was explanatory, rather than overtly condemnatory. It leaves visitors to draw their own conclusions.

The Museum of the Home (formerly the Geffrye Museum), meanwhile, has had to respond to the demands, most especially from its local community, that it remove the statue of Sir Robert Geffrye from the niche in the facade of the historic almshouses that house its collections. What it did, which was probably a good idea at the time, was to conduct an online survey. But when the great majority of respondents supported the view that the statue should be removed, the trustees, following advice from the Department for Culture, decided not to. Presumably this was partly because the statue belongs to the historic fabric and is protected by legislation (even without the current governments determination to introduce further legislation on the subject of statues).

My regret about the DCMS meeting is not that it is being held, then, but that the nature of the discussion and the conclusions which are reached will not be made public; and that, owing to the rancour of the current culture wars, we are not able to have a proper, balanced and even-handed discussion about how best to represent the British past in all its complexity.

Charles Saumarez Smith was director of the National Gallery and the National Portrait Gallery and is author of The Art Museum in Modern Times(Thames & Hudson).

Continue reading here:
The culture minister should take an interest in museums but he can't tell them how to interpret the past - Apollo Magazine

Britain is set to introduce new laws guaranteeing freedom of speech at universities to counteract what the government on Tuesday called unacceptable silencing and censoring on campuses.

As part of the plans, the government is considering appointing a free speech champion to investigate possible breaches of the right to expression, while academics who lose their jobs in similar disputes may be able to claim compensation.

I am deeply worried about the chilling effect on campuses of unacceptable silencing and censoring, saideducationminister Gavin Williamson.

That is why we must strengthen free speech in higher education, by bolstering the existing legal duties and ensuring strong, robust action is taken if these are breached. Prime Minister Boris Johnson later tweeted that freedom of speech is at the very core of our democracy.

It is absolutely right that our great universities the historic centres of free thinking and ideas will now have this freedom protected and bolstered with stronger legal protections, he added.

Williamson said it is important to strengthen freedom of speech in higher education by bolstering the existing legal duties and ensuring strong, robust action is taken if these are breached. Source: Lindsey Parnaby/AFP

However, the government was accused of exploiting culture wars, after itself launching a pushback against the toppling of slavery-era statues and efforts to educate Britons about their colonial past, in the wake of last years Black Lives Matter protests.

Just six events out of almost 10,000 involving an external speaker were cancelled over the speakers views in 2019-20, according to a survey in December by the group Wonkhe, which analyses highereducationpolicy.

The government has tapped into a wider push by conservatives, right-leaning libertarians and classical liberals to combat cancel culture and the supposed woke left agenda that they claim has led to a crisis of free speech in Britain, Australian historian Evan Smith wrote on the Wonkhe site.Smith, who published a book last year about campus free-speech rows,added that similar claims (are) being made in the US, Australia, Canada and France.

The government proposals were slammed by Jo Grady, general secretary of the University and College Union, which represents staff in highereducation.

It is extraordinary that in the midst of a global pandemic the government appears more interested in fighting phantom threats to free speech than taking action to contain the real and present danger which the virus poses to staff and students, she said.

But a group of senior academics welcomed the proposals in a letter to The Times.

In recent years, too many academics have been marginalised because they hold unorthodox views on issues like gender, Brexit and the legacy of empire, said the letter, organised by high-profile political commentator Matthew Goodwin.

Speakers to have been no-platformed at universities include Brexit politician Nigel Farage, Canadian academic Jordan Peterson, leading feminists Julie Bindel and Selina Todd, philosopher Roger Scruton and former interior minister Amber Rudd.

Read the original:
News UK set for new laws to protect freedom of speech on campus Trending - Study International News

Violence toward Black people and protests for racial justice were rampant in Philadelphia during the 1918 flu pandemic, in much the same way they have been during the current coronavirus pandemic.

Adella Bond fired her revolver outside her window into the South Philadelphia air, hoping to attract police as a mob of Irish American people gathered around her home to tell her she wasnt welcome.

Bond, a Black woman who was a municipal court probation officer, knew that racial conflicts unfolded in neighborhoods that had once belonged to only White people but were beginning to house Black people as they migrated from the South to the North during the Great Migration, said Kenneth Finkel, a professor in the department of history at Temple University in Philadelphia, and the author of Insight Philadelphia: Historical Essays Illustrated.

Black people were seeking work, property ownership and refuge from Southern violence from 1916 to 1970, when ultimately millions of them traveled north for industrial employment available there because of the labor shortages that started during World War I even during the 1918 influenza pandemic. Southern Black people sought those same features, as well as better quality of life, through World War II and afterward (although segregation and other obstacles persisted for a while).

Bond knew that White people had welcomed a Black family to a nearby neighborhood by harassing them and burning their furniture in the street earlier that July. She was also aware that another woman of color had previously lived in the house on Ellsworth Street that Bond moved into on Wednesday, July 24, 1918 so she supposed that the area may have been safer for Black people.

The second time she walked down that street, however, she was stoned. The violence came to her front door two days later, when about 100 White men and boys surrounded her house on Friday, July 26.

I heard them talk about having guns, and I saw the guns and cartridges. At last a man came along with a baby in his arms, Bond told her attorney on July 30, 1918, according to The Philadelphia Inquirer newspaper. He handed the baby to a woman, took a rock and threw it. The rock went through my parlor window. I didnt know what the mob would do next, and I fired my revolver from my upper window to call the police. A policeman came, but he wouldnt try to cope with that mob alone, so he turned it into a riot call.

The rock thrower, who had been shot in the leg, was arrested and held without bail. Police arrested Bond for inciting to riot, and the events of that day precipitated a slew of racial conflicts and riots that constituted one of the most violent periods in Philadelphias history.

Violence instigated by White people, violent police encounters and protests for racial justice were rampant in Philadelphia during the 1918 flu pandemic. George Floyd, a Black man from Minneapolis, was killed by a White policeman in May 2020. That killing and others by police led to the Black Lives Matter movement gaining momentum over the summer, in terms of national and global reach, numbers of protests and new supporters beyond Black communities.

Despite the challenges Black Philadelphians faced in 1918, they, too, summoned the spirit needed to work toward change.

The impact of these crowded race riots on the flu case and death rates in Philadelphia is unknown. The riots took place during a lull between the first and second waves of the pandemic, said Dr. Jeremy Brown, an emergency care physician and author of Influenza: The Hundred-Year Hunt to Cure the Deadliest Disease in History, via email. As such, and during the continuing fighting during the great war in Europe, attention was surely focused on other issues. The riot was not a superspreader event, because at the time there wasnt much disease to be spread. That came back in the fall.

We may not be able to establish casualty scientifically or historically between the outbreak of disease and the virus of racism, but we understand all too well that when we fear for our very lives, our mortality can shred our civility, Brown said in an unpublished paper on the topic. This dread exposes a primal panic that unleashes the violent human impulse to blame and hurt others in ways inexcusable. There are many lessons weve learned from looking at the history of pandemics, but some, regrettably, we never seem to take to heart.

Philadelphia had the largest Black population of any Northern city in 1910, although African Americans were only 5% of the citys population, said Charles Hardy, a professor of history at West Chester University of Pennsylvania.

The Great Migration resulted in Black newcomers in White neighborhoods and housing shortages, to which realtors responded by increasing rent prices effectively causing housing competition among Black and White people, and relocation by those who couldnt afford the new prices.

READ MORE: From the front lines, Black nurses battle twin pandemics of racism and coronavirus

Bond moved into a working class, tough Irish-American neighborhood, Hardy said. Philadelphia is historically known as the city of neighborhoods. The boundaries of ethnically specific neighborhoods werent to be crossed then.

Rather than blame the realtors, White residents harassed their new Black neighbors for their struggles and for not adhering to social codes in the segregated city. The citys a powder keg at this point in time, Hardy said.

A city tense over war, the flu pandemic and race riots erupted as what started at Bonds house that Friday night spread across about 2 square miles. Crowds of hundreds of rioters became thousands as the unrest escalated.

When things exploded, Finkel said, it went on for days. Every night was another chaotic mess.

On Saturday, a Black man named William Box was accused of thievery and chased by White men. A police bureau clerk tried to stop Box, who allegedly pulled a knife and cut the clerks arm.

Several policemen arrived on the scene, but were unable to curb the mob of whites and the negro was struck many times by persons in the crowd,' wrote Vincent P. Franklin, then an author and professor of history, in a 1975 paper on the race riots. Cries of lynch him' caused the police to send for help, and a squad of reserves arrived in time to prevent the mob doing serious injury to the negro,' Franklin continued, quoting a Philadelphia Inquirer report. They arrested Box and took him to the hospital.

The next morning, a White mob chased Jesse Butler as he walked home from a party. While running, Butler fired a shot into the mob and allegedly injured Hugh Lavery, a White man. Police who had arrived soon found that Butler was also wounded and took both men to the hospital, but Lavery died before their arrival.

Hostility spread as groups of White people attacked Black people on their regular travels throughout Philadelphia. Civilians, as the Home Defense Reserves typically used for emergencies, assisted around 250 policemen in maintaining a riot zone near Bonds neighborhood.

Black people felt tension and concern over police brutality, Hardy said. Philadelphia police forces were segregated, (and) most policemen were political appointees. Then theres this discriminatory enforcement of laws.

One of those was a type of stop-and-frisk practice. White patrolmen Roy Ramsey and John Schneider stopped a Black man, Riley Bullock, on an avenue and searched him on Monday. After finding a pocketknife Bullock legally carried, the patrolmen beat and arrested him. As they took Bullock into the station, he was fatally shot in the back, Finkel said, by a negro, who was seen making his escape. The police gave chase, but the alleged assailant managed to escape, reported many local newspapers that ran the unsubstantiated story.

The next day brought the revelation that Bullock was killed by a bullet from the gun of patrolman Ramsey who claimed that he slipped and his gun fired when he was taking Bullock into the station.

Bullock wasnt the only victim of police violence. When Ramsey and Schneider arrested a Black man named Preston Lewis that morning, they beat him so severely that Lewis had to be taken to the hospital. As Lewis laid on the operating table, Schneider reportedly began striking him before ultimately being carried out of the room by White officers.

Tuesday was calmer, but mobs tried to lynch a Black man for allegedly stealing a watermelon that day. When its all done four days later, youve had several hundred people who were injured, four people dead, Hardy said. The houses of dozens of Black families had been destroyed, forcing them to flee. And though White people had instigated most of the violence, the majority of the 60 people arrested were Black.

What you have in the early 1900s and today is rising nativism, White ethnocentrism and White supremacy, Hardy said. After World War I is when you witness the rebirth of the Ku Klux Klan which, in the 1920s, becomes a major political force. The culture wars that were witnessing today are very much reminiscent of the culture wars in the 1920s. Its basically fear of a White minority.

READ MORE: Fed study: 1918 flu deaths linked to relative strength of Nazism

There are chilling parallels between what we have seen in the midst of the coronavirus pandemic with the revelation of quite brutal police killings of African Americans and what actually happened back in 1918, Brown said.

That story is a very sobering one not least for which it reminds us that this kind of violence against the African American community is nothing new, sadly, he said. We know how long its been around, but when it comes to pandemics, its been around for well over a century.

Many Black Philadelphians organized to prevent experiencing further violence, destruction and death at the hands of White people, Franklin wrote.

Ministers and other prominent Black Philadelphians met and wrote a letter to the citys director of public safety. In it, they castigated the police force over the lack of protection and arrests of Black people during the violence, Franklin wrote, quoting the letter as reprinted by local newspapers.

In court, Black lawyers defended Black people who had been arrested during the riots. Black ministers and civic leaders formed the Association for the Protection of Colored People (or Colored Protective Association) in August, immediately gaining hundreds of members who worked and fundraised to represent prosecuted Black people and to support the civil rights of Black Philadelphians.

The association was responsible for the prosecution of patrolman Ramsey for killing Bullock, and patrolman Schneider for assaulting Lewis, but neither of the men were convicted partly due to fellow Black patrolmen backing down from testifying what they had really seen.

Black Philadelphians did succeed in getting the commander and all members of the police force transferred out of the 17th District, where most of the rioting had occurred. This event was hailed as a major victory for Philadelphias black community, Franklin wrote.

The association achieved mobilizing Black Philadelphians by informing them of their lawful civil rights, advising them on handling racial discrimination, giving speeches in churches and providing legal assistance for those who had been arrested or assaulted. When Black people made protests to government officials about violent White sailors, the commander of the Fourth Naval District investigated the situation, Franklin wrote.

When you look at Black Lives Matter demonstrations and the calls for police accountability and changes in police behavior, Hardy said, we can see a sort of predecessor to that in Philadelphia during the First World War.

These were the more significant and graphic results of the organized efforts of blacks to improve their situation in the City of Brotherly Love in the aftermath of the July, 1918, riot, Franklin wrote.

The similarities between the race riots of 1918 and racial conflicts today emphasize the importance of knowing the truth, Finkel said. Its really important not to just pat ourselves on the back and move on and forget the ugly chapters. Those ugly chapters are very informative and useful and real.

READ MORE: For churchgoers during the Covid-19 pandemic, a deadly lesson from the 1918 flu

The parallels also highlight that the movement toward racial equality is one step forward, two steps back, Hardy said.

Weve gotten unprecedented numbers of people of color in political office on the state level, he added. Weve got Kamala Harris as vice president. So, its a mixed bag. Its just this ongoing struggle. Clearly White supremacy and nativism are very strong movements in the United States today. On the other hand, a movement towards greater racial and gender equality I think continues.

Read more from the original source:
White violence and Black protests during the 1918 flu have a lesson for today - WTOP